The editorial process of Archivos de Zootecnia during 2010 is reported below. A total of 384 manuscripts were received from 33 countries, mainly from Brazil (66.9%). Consequently, the language most frequently used in the manuscripts was Portuguese, followed by Spanish and English. The mean time between submission and publication of a manuscript was 836.3 days. The rejection rate was 50.8%. In 2010, 49 articles, 21 short notes and 10 reviews (total 83) were published by authors coming from 15 countries.Se analiza el proceso editorial de Archivos de Zootecnia durante 2010. Se recibieron 384 manuscritos procedentes de 33 países, principalmente de Brasil (66,9%). Consecuentemente, el lenguaje más frecuentemente usado fue el portugués, seguido del español y el inglés. El tiempo medio entre recepción y publicación de un manuscrito fue elevado ( 836.3 dias). La tasa de rechazo fue del 50,8%. En 2010 fueron publicados 49 artículos, 21 notas breves y 10 revisiones (83 trabajos en total) cuyos autores pertenecían a 15 países diferentes

Arcos Castejón, J.

Gómez-Castro, A.G.

López de Bustamante, M.C.

Perea Muñoz, José Manuel

Archivos de Zootecnia

The editorial process of Archivos de Zootecnia during 2011 is reported below. A total of 373 manuscripts were received from 31 countries, mainly from Brazil (77%). Consequently, the language most frequently used in the manuscripts was Portuguese, followed by Spanish and English. The mean time from submission to publication of a manuscript was 700.4 days shorter than the 836.3 days lasted during 2010. The rejection rate was 52.3%. In 2011, 104 articles, 60 short notes and 5 reviews (total 169) were published by authors coming from 23 countries.Se analiza el proceso editorial de Archivos
de Zootecnia durante 2011. Se recibieron 373
manuscritos procedentes de 31 países, principalmente
de Brasil (77%). Consecuentemente,
el lenguaje más frecuentemente usado fue el
portugués, seguido del español y el inglés. El
tiempo medio entre recepción y publicación de un
manuscrito fue de 700,4 dias, aun elevado, pero
menor que el de 2010 (836.3 dias). La tasa de
rechazo fue del 52,3%. En 2011 fueron publicados
104 artículos, 60 notas breves y 5 revisiones
(169 trabajos en total) cuyos autores pertenecían
a 23 países diferentes

Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Córdoba

Arch. Zootec. 61 (233): 3-9. 2012.ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. EDITORIAL REPORT 2011ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. INFORME EDITORIAL 2011Gómez Castro, A.G.1*, López de Bustamante, M.C.1, Perea Muñoz, J.1 and Arcos Castejón, J.11Editorial Office of Archivos de Zootecnia. Animal Production Department. University of Cordoba. CampusRabanales. Cordoba. España. *pa1gocag@uco.esADDITIONAL KEYWORDSScientific journals. Scientific manuscripts.PALABRAS CLAVE ADICIONALESRevistas científicas. Trabajos científicos.SUMMARYThe editorial process of Archivos de Zoo-tecnia during 2011 is reported below. A total of373 manuscripts were received from 31countries, mainly from Brazil (77%). Conse-quently, the language most frequently used in themanuscripts was Portuguese, followed bySpanish and English. The mean time fromsubmission to publication of a manuscript was700.4 days shorter than the 836.3 days lastedduring 2010. The rejection rate was 52.3%. In2011, 104 articles, 60 short notes and 5 reviews(total 169) were published by authors comingfrom 23 countries.RESUMENSe analiza el proceso editorial de Archivosde Zootecnia durante 2011. Se recibieron 373manuscritos procedentes de 31 países, princi-palmente de Brasil (77%). Consecuentemente,el lenguaje más frecuentemente usado fue elportugués, seguido del español y el inglés. Eltiempo medio entre recepción y publicación de unmanuscrito fue de 700,4 dias, aun elevado, peromenor que el de 2010 (836.3 dias). La tasa derechazo fue del 52,3%. En 2011 fueron publica-dos 104 artículos, 60 notas breves y 5 revisiones(169 trabajos en total) cuyos autores pertene-cían a 23 países diferentes.INTRODUCTIONThe shortening of excessively longeditorial times, specially from submissionto printing, detected in previous editorialreports, continued as the principal targetfor 2011. As the economic crisis hasincreased, the difficult are remaining, and so,to increase the number of pages publishedyearly is a hard task. Nevertheless, during2011 an important effort was done and thenumber of published pages was more thantwice of those in 2010.METHODOLOGICALCONSIDERATIONSThe editorial report of 2010 follows thesame methodology described in the 2009editorial report (Gómez Castro et al., 2010).RECEIVED MANUSCRIPTSFigure 1 shows the annual progress ofmanuscripts received since the creation ofour web site (May, 2005). The annual numberof manuscripts received and managed byArchivos de Zootecnia has remarkablyincreased ever since. The number ofmanuscripts received during 2011 was 373(generally within the scope of the journal), ofwhich: 300 were articles, 25 short notes, and48 reviews. Both the number of manuscriptsand their type were similar to 2010.There have been no significant changesin the country of origin of the manuscripts;therefore, are substantially similar tocontributions received in past recent years(table I). The 77% of manuscripts receivedcome from Brazil, while Brazilian authorsArchivos de zootecnia vol. 61, núm. 233, p. 4.GÓMEZ CASTRO, LÓPEZ DE BUSTAMANTE, PEREA MUÑOZ AND ARCOS CASTEJÓNrepresent a greater proportion (81.99%), dueto the greather number of authors of thesemanuscripts. These proportions are higherthan in previous years, possibly related toa positive evaluation of Archivos de Zoo-tecnia in Brasil. Manuscripts signed byMexican an Nigerian authors representedan additional 9.3%, and the remaining 8.7%,came from other 28 countries, in proportionsvery similar (all lower than 2.0%). Manus-cripts received are from 13 different Spanishspeaking countries, two Lusophone coun-tries and other 16 countries speakingdifferent languages some (English, Frenchand Italian) official in the magazine.As shown in table II, the origin of themanuscripts is reflected on the languageused. However the Portuguese represents69.65%, which is lower than the percentageof items of Portuguese speaking origin.Spanish was used in 16.8% of the manus-cripts with a significant decrease on theTable I. Origin (%) of authors of manuscripts received and published during 2011. (Origen(%) de los autores de los manuscritos recibidos y publicados durante 2011).Ar Ap Nr Np Rr Rp Pr PpAlbania - 0.33 - - - - - 0.20Algeria 1.04 - 3.40 0.29 - - 1.11 0.10Argentina 2.09 7.41 - - - - 1.74 4.57Austria 0.12 - - - - - 0.10 -Belgium - - - 1.14 - - - 0.41Brasil 82.25 63.10 66.67 21.71 91.24 77.78 81.99 48.78Colombia 0.52 - 1.36 - 1.03 - 0.63 -Costa Rica 0.17 - 0.68 - 1.03 - 0.29 -Cuba 0.70 3.62 2.04 - - - 0.73 2.24Chile 0.58 0.66 2.04 0.29 - 3.70 0.63 0.61Dominicana R. 0.12 - - - - - 0.10 -Egypt 0.29 0.66 - - - - 0.24 0.41France 0.12 0.66 - - - - 0.10 0.41Germany 0.12 - - - - - 0.10 -Iran 0.12 - - - - - 0.10 -Italy 0.12 0.16 - - - - 0.10 0.10Mexico 6.09 5.44 16.33 5.14 2.06 - 6.44 5.18Nigeria 3.19 4.94 2.72 4.86 - - 2.86 4.78Panama - 0.16 - - - - - 0.10Paraguay 0.06 - - - - - 0.05 -Peru 0.35 - - 1.43 - - 0.29 0.51Portugal 0.17 - - 0.57 - - 0.15 0.20South Africa 0.06 0.16 - - - - 0.05 0.10South Korea - 0.33 - - - - - 0.20Spain 0.93 7.74 3.40 61.71 4.64 18.52 1.45 27.24Switzerland - 0.16 - - - - - 0.10Togo - - - 0.29 - - - 0.10Tunez 0.17 - - - - - 0.15 -Uruguay 0.12 2.47 1.36 2.57 - - 0.19 2.44USA 0.29 0.66 - - - - 0.24 0.41Venezuela 0.23 0.99 - - - - 0.19 0.61A: articles; N: short notes; R: reviews; P: total papers; r: received; p: published.Archivos de zootecnia vol. 61, núm. 233, p. 5.ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. EDITORIAL REPORT 2011former 25.4%; and English was the languageused in 12.74%, similar to the previous year.Only very few of manuscripts received(0.81%) were written in French. As inprevious years, there were no articles inItalian. It is remarkable that the percentageof manuscripts published in Spanish ishigher than those received, while the trendis reversed in the manuscripts publishedin Portuguese.REVIEWINGEach manuscript submitted to Archivosde Zootecnia is first reviewed by membersof the Editorial Board and Advisory Coun-cil. Subsequently, the Editorial Board at itsplenary session, analyzes each submittedmanuscript and decide if it must be reviewed(in which case at least two, and up to fourreviewers, are assigned) or rejected. Revie-wers are chosen from a repertoire of nearly1000 reputed international experts frommany different countries.Archivos de Zootecnia is grateful to the313 experts to whom at least one manuscriptwas sent to for review during 2011, asFigure 1. Annual progress of manuscripts received since May 2005. (Evolución de losmanuscritos recibidos desde mayo de 2005).0501001502002503003504002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Manuscripts (n)YearReceivedAceptedRejectedRetiredUnresolvedTable II. Language used (%) in the manuscripts received and published during 2011. (Idiomaempleado (%) en los manuscritos recibidos y publicados durante 2011).Ar Ap Nr Np Rr Rp Pr PpEnglish 14.43 20.19 8.33 13.33 4.26 - 12.74 17.16French 1.01 - - 3.33 - - 0.81 1.18Italian - - - - - - - -Portuguese 68.12 52.88 58.33 21.67 85.11 80.00 69.65 42.60Spanish 16.44 26.92 33.33 61.67 10.64 20.00 16.80 39.05A: articles; N: short notes; R: reviews; P: total papers; r: received; p: published.Archivos de zootecnia vol. 61, núm. 233, p. 6.GÓMEZ CASTRO, LÓPEZ DE BUSTAMANTE, PEREA MUÑOZ AND ARCOS CASTEJÓNindicated in annex 1. As shown in table III,the average review time of 160.2 ± 149.4 waslonger than previous years. However, thetime from acceptance to publicationchanged from 629.9 ± 31.8 in 2010 to 448.5 ±31.8 days in 2011, first consequence of theduplication of the annual number of pages.Consequently, the time between submissionof a manuscript and its publication hasdecreased to 700.4 ± 309.2 days vs. 836.3 ±31.1 in 2010. These waiting times continuetoo high and, although causes for this areattributed to all stages, frequently theauthors themselves caused large delaysduring the correction of their manuscripts.As the page number was strongly increasedthe number of waiting manuscripts wasreduced near to 0.A more detailed analysis of these datashows that the management of the reviewsand feedback from reviewers was longerthan in previous year, the recuperation ofdelayed manuscripts is the principal reason,however, there is still a lot of work to do forminimize delays. In past years the delayswere growing during the publication phasedue to the large number of manuscriptsreceived and approved, which far exceedsthe maximum number of pages publishedyearly due to budgetary reasons. Never-theless, along 2011 a considerable effortwas done and the number of pages (and so,of manuscripts) have been duplicated.The acceptance and rejection rate ofmanuscripts received, and completed, in2011 reached 2.9% and 52.3% respectively.While the acceptance rate has decreasedcompared to previous years, the rejectionhas increased. The sum of these rates doesnot imply that only 44.8% of the manuscriptsreceived during 2011 are pending a decision,since in fact there are more manuscripts inrevision received during the precedent year.PUBLISHED PAPERSThe journal Archivos de Zootecniapublished 171 manuscripts during 2011(table IV), doubling the number of manus-cripts published in 2010. The manuscriptswere published mainly in Portuguese (42.6%)and Spanish (39.0%); however, manuscriptspublished in Portuguese decreased, whilethe manuscripts published in Spanishincreased in 2011 (table II). About 48.8% ofthe authors were Brazilians followed bySpanish (27.2%) authors and finally, theremaining authors are from other 21 countries(table I). Countries of origin of authorscontinue the trend of recent years. The ave-rage number of authors in 2011 was 5.8 ± 2.5/manuscript. The average length of articleswas 9.7 ± 1.7 pages, 4.0 ± 0.1 pages for shortnotes, and 15.0 ± 6.2 pages for reviews.Table III. Editorial timing during 2011 (mean ± typical deviation). (Tiempos editoriales en 2011(media ± desviación típica).reception-decision acceptation-publication reception-publicationArticles 179.7 ± 161.5 520.1 ± 14.7 42.8 ± 211.6Short notes 119.5 ± 107.9 359.1 ± 284.7 83.0 ± 313.8Reviews 111.0 ± 103.4 30.8 ± 14.7 347.4 ± 134.7Total 160.2 ± 149.4 448.5 ± 31.8 00.4 ± 309.2Table IV. Manuscripts published in 2011.(Trabajos publicados en 2011).N % Pages %Articles 104 60.8 1012 75.7Short notes 60 35.1 239 17.9Reviews 5 2.9 75 5.6News 1 0.6 2 0.1Editorial report 1 0.6 8 0.6Total 171 100 1336 100Archivos de zootecnia vol. 61, núm. 233, p. 7.ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. EDITORIAL REPORT 2011About 7% of the received manuscriptsare written by authors coming from morethan one country, in the case of publishedpapers this figure rises to 11.2%. Membersof the Publisher Institution or from EditorialBoard in the previous year only accountedfor 0.8 and 0.1 percent respectively, in2011 rose to 1.6 and 2.3% respectively. Inany case, in the previous and present year,are small ratios of endogamy in the contentsof the journal (table V).The topics covered in the manuscriptspublished by Archivos de Zootecnia areshown in table VI. The animal speciesTable VI. Topics covered in manuscripts received and published during 2011. (Temas tratadosen los manuscritos recibidos y publicados durante 2011).Ar Ap Nr Np Rr Rp Pr PpAnimal behavior 1.00 0.96 - 1.67 - - 0.81 1.18Breeds and genetic 7.02 16.35 4.00 40.00 2.13 - 6.20 24.26Economy and management 3.68 6.73 - 6.67 - - 2.96 6.51Enviroment 0.33 - - - 2.13 - 0.54 -Farming systems 2.68 2.88 4.00 5.00 2.13 20.00 2.70 4.14Feeding and foods 59.87 60.58 44.00 11.67 51.06 40.00 57.68 42.60Growth 1.67 0.96 4.00 6.67 2.13 - 1.89 2.96Health - 1.92 16.00 - 17.02 - 3.23 1.18Production techniques 7.36 8.65 4.00 5.00 12.77 40.00 7.82 8.28Productive activityall ruminants 3.34 - - - 12.77 40.00 4.31 1.18alternative species 3.68 6.73 8.00 11.67 - - 3.50 8.28aquaculture 7.69 6.73 4.00 1.67 6.38 - 7.28 4.73beekeeping 0.67 0.96 - 1.67 - - 0.54 1.18   bovines 27.09 26.92 12.00 41.67 27.66 - 26.15 31.36   caprines 4.35 5.77 12.00 6.67 - - 4.31 5.92   equines 1.34 2.88 - 10.00 2.13 - 1.35 5.33   ovines 12.04 10.58 40.00 13.33 2.13 - 12.67 11.24   porcines 9.70 7.69 4.00 5.00 10.64 - 9.43 6.51   poultry 9.70 9.62 - 6.67 8.51 40.00 8.89 9.47   rabitts 5.69 1.92 - - - - 4.58 1.18Products   carcass and meat 0.67 5.77 8.00 13.33 55.32 - 8.09 8.28   eggs 2.68 - - - 2.13 - 2.43 -   honey 0.33 - - - - - 0.27 -milk 2.01 0.96 - 1.67 - - 1.62 1.18   cheese - 0.96 - - - - - 0.59Reproduction 9.03 10.58 32.00 26.67 6.38 - 10.24 15.98A: articles; N: short notes; R: reviews; P: total papers; r: received; p: published.Table V. Manuscripts (%) authored bymembers of the University of Cordoba orby members of the Editorial staff publishedin 2011. (Trabajos (%) firmados por miembros dela Universidad de Córdoba o del Equipo Editorialdurante 2011).University Editorial of Cordoba staffArticles 1.3 2.1Short notes 0.9 2.0Reviews 18.5 11.1Total 1.6 2.3Archivos de zootecnia vol. 61, núm. 233, p. 8.GÓMEZ CASTRO, LÓPEZ DE BUSTAMANTE, PEREA MUÑOZ AND ARCOS CASTEJÓNstudied were mainly, bovine, followed byovine, poultry and alternative species. Thestudies mainly focused on feeding and foods,breeds and genetics, and reproduction.Topics continue the trend of recent years.DIFUSSIONArchivos de Zootecnia (online and papereditions) is included in about 400 directoriesor electronic databases (AgriculturalBIOSIS, CAB abstracts, Latindex, Scopus,Scielo ...), making the journal readily found.No notable changes from the previous yearin this regard. More than 2 300 000 (400 000hits during 2011) visits have been registeredin Archivos de Zootecnia web page:http://www.uco.es/organiza/servicios/publica/az/az.htmIn conclusion, during 2011 Archivos deZootecnia has reinforced its role as an outletfor scientific research regardless of the longeditorial times. The problems detected inprevious reports regarding the delay inpublication have decreased; however, it isnot enough, nevertheless the efforts doneby Archivos de Zootecnia during 2011.REFERENCESGómez Castro, A.G., López de Bustamante, M.C.,Perea Muñoz, J. and Arcos Castejón, J. 2010.Archivos de Zootecnia. Editorial report 2009.Arch Zootec, 59: 3-10.ANNEX 1. 2011 REFEREESArgentina: A. Guglielmone; A. Ohanian; D. Bedotti;D. Rochinotti; E. Morici; G. Gagliostro; J.C. Gómez;J.I. Arroquy; J.O. Azcona; J.P. Roux; J.R. Carre-te; L. Romero; M. Benvenutti; M. Brizuela; M. deLeón; N. Aguilar; R. Martinez; O.M. González; P.Maldonado Vargas.Argelia: H. Yakhlef.Austria: M. Schuh.Brasil: A. Aparecido; A. Borges Amorim; A. daSilva Mariante; A. de Moura Zanine; A. EikoMurakami; A. Evangelista; A. Ferreira Barcelos;A. Ferriani Branco; A.G.C. Alves; A.J. VieiraPires; A.L. Costa Cruz Borges; A.L. Finkler daSilveira; A.M. Corrêa Vieira; A.M. Vieira Batista;A. Martins Varela de Arruda; A. Moreira Ramosde Carvalho; A. Nunez de Madeiro; A.S. ChavesVeras; A. Sanpaio Carrijo; A. Saran Netto; A.Silva Madeiro; A. Silva; A. Soares Oliveira; A.E.Santana; B. Borges Deminicis; B. Murta Salomão;B.R. Cunha dos Santos; C. Abdalla Gomide; C.Bressan; C. Cachoni Pizzolante; C. Kiefer; C.Leal; C. Mistura; C. Scapinello; C. Thomaz; C.C.H.M. Malhado; D.A. Berto; D. Emygdio de Faria;D. Façanha; D. Jorge de Moura; D. Matos; D.Sávio Campos Paciullo; D. Soares da Silva; E.Oliveira Simões Saliba; E. Cavalcanti PimentaFilho; E.M. Casartelli; E.R. Moraes Garcia; E.Shimoda; E. Tadeu Fialho; E. Vasconcelos Ho-landa Júnior; F.F. Ramos de Carvalho; F. IstvanBankuti; F. Meurer; F. Nogueira Domingues; G.Giordano Pinto de Carvalho; G. Guarez Garcia;G.L. Colnago; G. Medeiros; G. Porto Barreto; G.Sampaio Gonçalves; H. Borba; H. Mazzuco; H.Oliveira Silva; H. Pandorfi; H. Pena Couto; I.Borges; I.J. da Silva; I. Zanella; J. RibamarMarques; J.C. Batista Dubeux; J. DarosMalaquias Júnior; J.N. Miranda Neiva; J. PereiraNeves; J.R. Olalquiaga Pérez; J. Ribamar Priva-do Filho; J. Souza; J.A. Delfino Barbosa Filho;L.A. Kioshi Aoki Inoue; L.A. Nero; L.C. Cassol;L. da Silva Cabral; L.E. Edivaldo Pezzato; L.G.Nussio; L.G. Tavares Braga; L. GalvaoAlburquerque; L. Geraseev; L.M. Zeoula; L.Paes Barreto; L. Rei de França; L.G.T. Braga;M.A. Cassiano Lara; M.A. Rotta; M.C. CarvalhoGuimarães; M.C. Silva; M.C. Soares Fioravanti;M.C. Thomaz; M. de Andrade Ferreira; M.G.Morais; M.I. Marcondes; M.J. de Oliveira Almeida;M.J. Duarte; M.L. Nicodemo; M.L. Pires Bianchi;M.L. Rodrigues de Souza; M.M. Machado RibeiroAzevêdo; M. Miele; M.N. Ribeiro; M. PachecoChediak Correa; M. Pereira da Silva; M.R. deBorba; M.S. da Rosa; M. Toledo; M. VazquelVidal Júnior; M. Verardino de Stéfani; M.F. Mota;N. Rocha Silva; N.M. Rodriguez; O. Cavalcanti;O. Gomes Pereira; O.M. de Moura; P.A. VictóriaArchivos de zootecnia vol. 61, núm. 233, p. 9.ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. EDITORIAL REPORT 2011de Oliveira; P.B. Ferraz Filho; P.C. de AguiarPaiva; P. Marques Meyer; P.P. Mendonça; R. A.C. Correa Filho; R.A. Cardellino; R. AllanBombardelli; R. Carrilho Canesin; R. Casarotto;R. de Oliveira Figueiredo; R. Germano; R.L.Marchão; R.M. Brito; R. Menezes; R. OliveraCavalli; R. Pavesi Araujo; R.A. Reis; S.A. doCarmo Araújo; S. Benone; S. Endo; S. L. SalomónCabral Filho; S.M. Franciscato Cozzolino; S.M.Salis; S. Raposo de Medeiros; T.C. Ribeiro DiasKoberstein; T. Domiciano Dantas Martis; T.Vasconcelos Melo; V. Fischer; V. ImbroisiTeixeira; V. Joana Pott; V. Rodrigues Vascon-celos; V.F.B. Roll; W. Massamitu Furuya; W.Motta Ferreira; W.R. Boscolo.Canada: E. Martin Aregheore; M. Juarez. Canadá.Chile: P. Toro Mujica; J. Piñeira; C. Aguilar.Colombia: P. Cuesta; M. Piniero; G. García; C.J.Tobón; C. Herrera Farfán. A. Torres; A.R. PovedaParra.Cuba: E. Silveira Prado.España: A. Arana; A. Diz Plaza; A. Calleja Suárez;A. Arguello Henríquez; A. Estevez; A.F. ChicaPérez; A. Francesch Vidal; A. GonzálezMartínez; A. González; A. Horcada Ibáñez; A.I.Garzón Sigler; V. Rodríguez-Estévez; V.Fernández Cabanas; T.J. Roy Pérez; R. MoyanoSalvago; R.M. Nieto; R. Ginés; R. Dios Paloma-res; R. Celaya; R. Caballero; R. Blanco Sepúlveda;R. Acero de la Cruz; P. Zurita; P. Lara Velez; P.Albertí Lasalle; N. Nuñez Sanchez; M. ValeraCórdoba; M. Sánchez Rodríguez; M.P. RuizPérez-Cacho; M. P. Pérez Guzmán Palomares;M. Joy; M. Jover Cerda; M. Jodral Villarejo; M.J.Milán; M.J. López Asensio; M.J. Alcalde Aldea;M. Hidalgo Prieto; M. Hermoso; M. GómezFernández; M. Fondevila Camps; M. Fernández;M.A. Chaso Criado; L. Pérez; L.F. GosálvezLara; L. Bermejo; L. Alabart; J.C. Navarro; J.Tovar Andrada; J. Santiago Moreno; J. MartosPeinado; J. Madrid Sánchez; J.M. Serrano Ca-ballero; J.M. Mancilla Leytón; J. M. León Jurado;J.M. Castel Genis; J.L. Vega Plá; J.L. Ares; J.Jordana Vidal; J.J. Garrido; J. García García; J.Folch Pera; J.F. Pérez Hernández; J.F. AguileraSánchez; J. Dorado; J. Capote; J. CañónFerreras; J. Balcells; J.A. Cebrian Pérez; I.Vázquez González; I. Berruga; I. Abdel Gálvez;H. Galán Soldevilla; G. Santoma; F. Ruíz deHuidobro; A. de Villapadierna; F.J. Berral de laRosa; E. Gómez Blasco; E. Camacho Vallejo; E.Berriatúa; D. Sola-Oriol; D. Carrión Pardo; C.Vieira Aller; C. Sosa; C. Sañudo Astiz; C. CerveraFras; C. Barba Capote; A. Titos Moreno; A. SanzRus; A. Rodriguez de Ledesma; A. Poto Rema-cha; A. Olaizola; A. Méndez Sánchez; A. MartínezTeruel; A. Martínez Martínez; A. MartínezFernández; P. García Herradon; M.R. FresnoVaquero; A.M. Serrano González; A.L. MartínezMarín; C. García Romero; M. Fondevila Camps;J. Dorado; P. Peñalver; R. Ginés.Francia: P. Sans; M. Meuret.Italia: V. Landi; S. Gigli; E. Lasagna.México: M. Meneses-Mayo; M. González Alcorta;M.G. Rodríguez Galván; M.A. Galina Hidalgo; J.Quiroz Valiente; A. Diaz Cruz; A. Cesin Vargas;G. Mascorro; F.J.V. Franco Guerra.Nigeria : A.O. Oni; S.N. Ukachukwu.Panamá: A. Villalobos.Paraguay: A. Yanosky Farrán.República Dominicana: D. Valerio Cabrera.USA: J. Coelho; R. Adedayo Hamzat.Uruguay: C. Mas; F. Olmos; W. Ayala; Y. AcostaVenezuela: V. De Basilio; Z. Chirinos.

Archivos de zootecnia. Informe editorial 2011

The editorial process of Archivos de Zootecnia during 2012 is reported below. A total of 361
manuscripts coming from 28 countries, mainly
from Brazil (78 %), were received. Consequently,
the language most frequently used in the
manuscripts was Portuguese, followed by Spanish
and English. The mean time elapsed from
submission of a manuscript until printing, was 599
days, a hundred days shorter than 2011. The
rejection rate was 65 %. In 2011, 53 articles, 11
short notes and 7 reviews (total 72) were published
by authors coming from 14 different countries.Se analiza el proceso editorial de Archivos de
Zootecnia durante 2012. Se recibieron 361 manuscritos
procedentes de 28 países, principalmente
de Brasil (78 %). Consecuentemente, el
lenguaje más frecuentemente usado fue el portugués,
seguido del español y el inglés. El tiempo
medio entre recepción y publicación de un manuscrito
fue de 599 dias, aún elevado, pero 100 días
menor que el de 2011. La tasa de rechazo fue del
65 %. En 2012 fueron publicados 53 artículos, 11
notas breves y 7 revisiones (72 trabajos en total)
cuyos autores pertenecían a 14 países diferentes

Arch. Zootec. 62 (237): 3-7. 2013.ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. EDITORIAL REPORT 2012ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. INFORME EDITORIAL 2012Gómez Castro, A.G.1*; López de Bustamante, M.C.1; Perea Muñoz, J.1 and Arcos Castejón, J.11Editorial Office of Archivos de Zootecnia. Animal Production Department. University of Cordoba. CampusRabanales. Cordoba. España. *pa1gocag@uco.esADDITIONAL KEYWORDSScientific journals. Scientific manuscripts.PALABRAS CLAVE ADICIONALESRevistas científicas. Trabajos científicos.SUMMARYThe editorial process of Archivos de Zootec-nia during 2012 is reported below. A total of 361manuscripts coming from 28 countries, mainlyfrom Brazil (78 %), were received. Consequently,the language most frequently used in themanuscripts was Portuguese, followed by Spanishand English. The mean time elapsed fromsubmission of a manuscript until printing, was 599days, a hundred days shorter than 2011. Therejection rate was 65 %. In 2011, 53 articles, 11short notes and 7 reviews (total 72) were publishedby authors coming from 14 different countries.RESUMENSe analiza el proceso editorial de Archivos deZootecnia durante 2012. Se recibieron 361 ma-nuscritos procedentes de 28 países, principal-mente de Brasil (78 %). Consecuentemente, ellenguaje más frecuentemente usado fue el portu-gués, seguido del español y el inglés. El tiempomedio entre recepción y publicación de un manus-crito fue de 599 dias, aún elevado, pero 100 díasmenor que el de 2011. La tasa de rechazo fue del65 %. En 2012 fueron publicados 53 artículos, 11notas breves y 7 revisiones (72 trabajos en total)cuyos autores pertenecían a 14 países diferentes.INTRODUCCIONThe shortening of excessively long edi-torial times, specially from submission toprinting, as indicated in previous editorialreports (Gómez Castro et al., 2012),continued as the principal target for 2012.As the economic crisis has increased, thedifficults remain, and so, to increase thenumber of pages published yearly is a hardand not viable task. Nevertheless, during2012 an important effort was done in orderto shortening the editorial times.RECEIVED MANUSCRIPTSDuring the year 2012, three hundred sixtyone manuscripts coming from 28 differentcountries were received. Of them: 288 (79.8%) articles; 25 (6.9 %) short notes and 48(13.3 %) reviews.There have been no significant changesin the countries of origin of the manuscripts(table I) in comparation with previous years.The greatest number of manuscriptsreceived come from Brazil and so, Brazilianauthors represent also the greater proportion(78.5 %), due to the greater number ofauthors of each of these manuscripts.Nevertheless this figure is lower thanprevious year. Manuscripts signed byMexican an Nigerian authors representedan additional 12.2 %, and the remaining,came from other 25 countries, distributed invery similar proportions (all lower than 3.0%). Manuscripts received are from 12different Spanish speaking countries, twoLusophone countries, and other 13 coun-tries, speaking different languages (English,French and Italian) official in the magazine.Archivos de zootecnia vol. 62, núm. 237, p. 4.GÓMEZ CASTRO, LÓPEZ DE BUSTAMANTE, PEREA MUÑOZ AND ARCOS CASTEJÓNIn whole, 6 European countries, 13 from Cen-tral and Sud America (including Mexico) and5 from Africa; the remaining countries pro-viding manuscripts were mainly Asiatic (3).As shown in table II, the origin of themanuscripts is reflected on the languageused by its authors. However the Portugueserepresents 66.2 % of manuscripts received;Spanish was used in 13.6 % of the manus-cripts received; English language was usedin higher (18.6 %), proportion than previousyear. A little, but growing, proportion ofmanuscripts (1.9 %) were written in French.EDITORIAL TIMESEach manuscript submitted to Archivosde Zootecnia, is first reviewed by membersof the Editorial Board and Advisory Council.Subsequently, the Editorial Board at itsplenary session, analyzes each submittedmanuscript and decide if it must be reviewed(in which case at least two, and up to fourreviewers, are assigned) or rejected.Reviewers are chosen from a repertoire ofnearly 1500 reputed international expertsfrom many different countries.Table I. Origin (%) of authors of manuscripts received and published during 2012. (Origen(%) de los autores de los manuscritos recibidos y publicados en 2012).A r A p Nr Np Rr Rp Pr PpBrasil 79.1 79.5 56.7 46.3 86.8 70.0 78.5 74.2España 2.0 0.3 5.0 13.0 3.4 - 2.7 2.1Alemania - - - - 1.5 - 0.2 -Islandia - - - - 0.5 - 0.1 -Argelia 0.9 - 3.3 7.4 - - 1.2 1.0Argentina 1.1 4.0 - - - - 1.5 3.1México 5.3 3.3 3.3 14.8 - 10.0 5.7 5.4Perú 1.1 - 1.7 - - - 1-0 -Colombia 0.8 - 1.7 - 3.9 16.7 1.4 1.3Portugal 0.9 - 15.8 - 0.5 - 1.8 -Cuba 0.1 0.7 - 5.6 - - 0.3 1.3USA 0.4 1.0 0.8 - - - 0.5 0.8Uruguay 0.7 0.7 - 3.7 - - 0.8 1.0Nigeria 5.7 4.6 10.0 9.3 1.5 - 6.5 4.9Chile 0.2 - - - 1.5 - 0.4 -Venezuela 0.5 4.0 - - - - 1.0 3.1Rumania 0.1 - - - - - 0.1 -Panamá 0.1 - - - - - 0.1 -India 0.1 - - - - - 0.1 -Túnez 0.2 - - - - - 0.2 -Costa de Marfil 0.2 - - - - - 0.2 -Malasia 0.2 - - - - - 0.2 -Benín 0.1 - - - - - 0.1 -Irán 0.2 - 1.7 - - - 0.3 -Costa Rica - - - - - - 0.1 -Paraguay - 0.3 - - - 3.3 0.1 0.3Sudáfrica - 1.3 - - - - 0.2 1.0Francia - 0.3 - - - - 0.1 0.3A: articles; N: short notes; R: reviews; P: total papers; r: received; p: published.Archivos de zootecnia vol. 62, núm. 237, p. 5.ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. EDITORIAL REPORT 2012Archivos de Zootecnia is grateful to themore of 500 experts (from more of twentycountries)  to whom at least one manuscriptwas sent to, for reviewing, during 2012.As shown in table III, the average peerreviewing time, was reduced in 20 daysrespect to the 160.2 days in previous year.However, better improvement was reachedin the time elapsed from acceptance to thepublication, that changed from 448.5 ± 31.8days in 2011 to 245 ± 155, as consequenceof reduction of the number of manuscriptswaiting for impression done in 2011.Consequently, the time between submissionof a manuscript and its publication hasdecreased from 700.4 ± 309.2 days in 2011, to599 ± 229. These waiting times continue toohigh and, although causes for this areattributed to all stages of editorial process,frequently the authors themselves causedlarge delays during the correction of theirmanuscripts; also the delay in peerevaluations is sometimes too long. In 2012new gestion procedures have been imple-mented for reduce these long waiting times.From the 361 manuscripts received during2012, 72.3 % were (favourably or unfa-vourably) resolved during the year 2012.From manuscripts received, which editorialprocess was completed in 2012, the accep-tance and rejection rates reached about 7 %and 65 % respectively. Both, the acceptance,and the rejection rates, have increasedcompared to previous year as results of amore faster evaluation process. The sum ofthese rates does not imply that only 38 % ofthe manuscripts received during 2012 arepending of a decision, since in fact, there aremore manuscripts received during theprecedent year in revision.MANUSCRIPTS PUBLISHEDThe journal Archivos de Zootecniapublished 72 manuscripts during 2012(table IV).As shown in table II, the origin of themanuscripts is reflected on the languageused. However the Portuguese represents59.1 % of published manuscripts, which islower than the percentage of items ofPortuguese speaking origin. Spanish wasused in 26.8 % of the manuscripts publishedwith a significant decrease on the previous39.05 %; The English language was used(12.7 %) in lesser proportion than previousyear. Only very few of manuscripts publishedTable II. Language used (%) in the manuscripts received and published during 2012.(Lenguaje empleado (%) en los manuscritos recibidos y publicados en 2012).A r A p Nr Np Rr Rp Pr PpEnglish 13.2 19.1 18.9 32.0 - 8.3 18.6 12.7French - 1.7 9.0 4.0 - - 1.9 1.4Portuguese 66.0 64.2 27.3 48.0 57.1 87.5 66.2 59.1Spanish 20.7 14.9 45.4 16.0 42.9 4.2 13.6 26.8A: articles; N: short notes; R: reviews; P: total papers; r: received; p: published.Table III. Editorial timing during 2012(mean ± standard deviation). (Tiempos edito-riales durante 2012; media ± desviación típica).reception acceptation receptiondecision publication publicationArticles 141 ± 167 233 ± 86 604 ± 221Short notes 157 ± 163 447 ± 218 688 ± 240Reviews 130 ± 167 19 ± 16 427 ± 206Total 141 ± 166 245 ± 155 599 ± 229Archivos de zootecnia vol. 62, núm. 237, p. 6.GÓMEZ CASTRO, LÓPEZ DE BUSTAMANTE, PEREA MUÑOZ AND ARCOS CASTEJÓN(1.4 %) were written in French. As in previousyears, there were no articles in Italian. It isremarkable that only the percentage ofmanuscripts published in Spanish is higherthan those received in this language, thetrend is reversed in the manuscriptspublished in other languages.The average number of authors in paperspublished in 2012 was 5.5 ± 2.1/manuscript;These figures are practically the same inboth received and published papers in eachtype of contributions. The average size ofarticles was 9.7 ± 1.7 pages, 4.0 ± 0.1 pagesfor short notes, and 15.0 ± 6.2 pages forreviews.Table IV. Manuscripts published in 2012.(Manuscritos publicados durante 2012).N % Pages %Articles 53 73.6 529 79.5Short notes 11 15.3 43 6.5Reviews 7 9.7 86 12.9Editorial report 1 1.3 7 1.0Total 72 100 665 100Table V. Topics covered in manuscripts received and published during 2012. (Temas tratadosen los manuscritos recibidos y publicados durante 2012).A r A p Nr Np Rr Rp Pr PpAnimal behavior and welfare 1.9 2.0 - - 7.1 - 2.4 1.5Breeds and genetic 7.5 7.8 18.2 9.1 7.1 - 8.1 7.2Economy and management 3.0 3.9 4.5 - 2.4 14.3 3.0 4.3Enviroment 0.7 - - - 2.4 - 0.9 -Farming systems 4.8 3.9 - - - 14.3 3.9 4.3Feeding and foods 45.1 62.7 31.8 54.6 54.8 14.3 45.5 56.5Growth 3.4 1.9 4.5 - 2.4 14.3 3.3 2.9Health 6.3 1.9 4.5 - 7.1 28.6 6.3 4.3Production techniques 4.5 3.9 4.5 - 2.4 - 4.2 2.9Productive activityAll ruminants 1.9 2.4 4.3 - 19.4 14.3 4.1 3.4Alternative species 4.7 4.8 - 11.1 5.6 - 4.4 5.2Aquaculture 9.8 9.5 4.3 - 8.3 14.3 9.2 8.6Beekeeping 3.1 - 4.3 - - - 2.9 -Caprines 8.6 9.5 - 11.1 - - 7.0 8.6Cattle 14.1 2.6 8.7 33.3 8.3 28.6 13.0 27.6Dairy 9.8 2.4 21.7 - 13.9 28.6 11.1 5.2Equines 3.5 - - - 8.3 - 3.8 -Heliciculture 1.9 - 17.4 - - - 2.9 -Ovines 17.6 9.5 17.4 44.4 13.9 - 17.1 13.8Porcines 11.7 19.0 - - 13.9 - 12.4 13.8Poultry 11.3 14.3 4.3 - 8.3 14.3 10.5 12.1Rabitts 1.9 2.4 - - - 1.6 1.7ProductsCarcass and meat 9.3 7.8 4.5 9.1 2.4 14.3 8.1 8.7Honey 1.1 - - - - - 0.9 -Milk 1.1 1.9 4.5 - - - 1.2 1.4Reproduction 11.2 1.9 22.7 27.3 11.9 - 12.0 5.8A: articles; N: short notes; R: reviews; P: total papers; r: received; p: published.Archivos de zootecnia vol. 62, núm. 237, p. 7.ARCHIVOS DE ZOOTECNIA. EDITORIAL REPORT 2012About 4.7 % of the received manuscriptsare written by authors coming from morethan one country, in the case of publishedpapers, this figure rises to 12.7 %. Authors,members both the Publisher Institution, orfrom the Editorial Council in the previousyear accounted for 3.9 percent, in 2012 thisfigure rose to 4.3 %. In any case, the ratiosof endogamy in the journal's articles aremaintained low.The topics covered in the manuscriptspublished by Archivos de Zootecniacontinue the trend of recent years as areshown in table V. The animal speciesstudied, were mainly, bovine, followed byovine, porcine and poultry. The studiesmainly focused on feeding and foods,breeds and genetics, and reproduction.REFERENCESGómez Castro, A.G.; López de Bustamante, M.C.;Perea Muñoz, J. and Arcos Castejón, J. 2012.Archivos de Zootecnia. Editorial report 2011.Arch Zootec, 61: 3-9.

Archivos de Zootecnia. Informe Editorial 2010

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Córdoba

Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Córdoba

Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Córdoba